The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.

Review #2583: The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.

Cast:

Brendan Fraser (Rick O'Connell), Maria Bello (Evelyn Carnahan-O'Connell), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Russell Wong (General Ming Guo), Liam Cunningham (Mad Dog Maguire), Luke Ford (Alex O'Connell), Isabella Leong (Lin), Michelle Yeoh (Zi Yuan), Jet Li (Qin Shi Huang), Anthony Wong (General Yang), Jessey Meng (Colonel Choi), David Calder (Professor Roger Wilson), Albert Kwan (Chu Wah), with James Bradford (Jameson), and Freda Foh Shen (the Narrator) Directed by Rob Cohen (#043 - The Fast and the Furious, #924 - The Boy Next Door, #1089 - Stealth)

Review: 

"I think it's the charisma of the idea of the undead and how they are cursed because they can't be successful denying mortality. I think we ascribe powers to the undead--if something has transcended death, it can't be normal. And whenever something unsettling has power, it makes a great villain. Movies are made by great villains, not by the heroes. A movie like this depends on how bad the bad guy is, so the good guys can rise to the occasion."

You know, with The Mummy [1999] (as devised by Stephen Sommers, Lloyd Fonvielle, Kevin Jarre, which in turn was a loose remake of the 1932 movies of the same name), you could see the appeal of having a good ol' adventure within a loose deal of romance within tinges of horror, and, well, some humor. The Mummy Returns [2001]...was almost as decent. Maybe it was rushed, maybe it was a bit too hollow to really make for a quality sequel, but it was still a crowd-pleaser. Seven long years later, there was a third The Mummy movie for folks of the new millennium to enjoy. I suppose it seems timely to cover a film that won't even be considered a "direct sequel" to Returns (2001) by 2027 because somehow, someway, there is an impending Mummy movie (okay, there was that one Mummy movie released in 2026, but let's not get into that now*). By 2004, Stephen Sommers, director of the previous Mummy movies, was not keen on coming back for a third movie, feeling that it would just be too hard to make it really come together like the first two, although he did co-produce it; directing duties went to Rob Cohen*. Screenwriting duties went to the duo of Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (you might recognize them from such scripts as Lethal Weapon 4 [1998], the Shanghai movies [2000, 2003]). Made on a larger budget than the last two films (estimated at over $145 million), the movie was a mild success with audiences.

It's not exactly a mummy movie, if you want to be technical, since the Emperor and his army is actually just encased in clay as part of a curse that draws upon actual history, mainly the Terracotta Army (the real Army is a collection of ceramic sculptures of the armies of Emperor Qin Shi Huang that was buried with him in his mausoleum). Now, are we talking about archeology (because sometimes I have links for that) or we talking about a middling sequel? Honestly, I didn't have many expectations for this movie, mainly because the recasting of Rachel Weisz for Maria Bello could not possibly be a good omen for a film that will also feature further moments within the parent-son dynamic of adventure that surely isn't a discount version of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (incidentally, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull came out two months before Dragon Emperor). And, well, it is a pretty mediocre movie, filled with possibly even less energy between the people you want to see (our human goofballs stumbling around in the history books). But it is sometimes funny within all of the stops thrown in to try and elevate this shambling spectacle that honestly is almost more interesting than the previous movie. You get CG catlike yeti, Shangri-La (who else but crib from Lost Horizon?), attempts to look like 1946 that doesn't really look that timely, further CG amusements involving dragons, the Great Wall having a litany of dead folks coming out of it, and more within a 112-minute runtime that somehow seems rushed to oblivion. Fraser* just doesn't have that much to genuinely do besides be stuck in cartoonish dynamics with a present-only-in-spirit Bello and present-in-theory Ford, who each can't deliver anything other than tired remarks and only hints of an actual connection. How hard is it to have gone with a plan to move on from Arnold Vosloo in the whole "evil mummy with a reign of terror"? Evidently, not too easy of a plan. It isn't even worth trying to see Li or Yeoh try to pull the local flavor of "go-go mystic bullshit" because honestly, there is barely anything worth mentioning that you haven't seen in some way before in constrained drama (they are the ones who start the movie, mind you, hence the narrator credit) that goes for little charm and little everything, honestly. Hannah might as well be sleepwalking through the experience, which isn't something worth saying for the only other regular besides Fraser to be in all three movies. After a while, you really do just go through the motions of watching this movie do the bare minimum. The magic of the first movie was those folks (Fraser, Hannah, Weisz) intermixing with mayhem for actual warmth and fun. The second just ran with the spectacle at the expense of really challenging anything and the third just feels tired when undead folks are going around mowing each other down or in its evitable finish of folks getting the girl and so on. You can do better than checking out this middle-of-the-road movie.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars,

Song of the day!

*Honestly, I didn't have time to see it. Who the hell releases a mummy movie in April? Also, who the hell thought it would make sense to call it "Lee Cronin's The Mummy"? Are you kidding me? Really? Oh but it was to alleviate the confusion from other "The Mummy" movies - shit, just put the year in the title to really set yourself apart. Quibble over.

*In 2019, Cohen was accused of sexually assaulting his trans daughter as a child. Incidentally, he has not directed a movie since 2018.

*There are some movies that have future Academy Award winning actors, why not two with Brendan Fraser and Michelle Yeoh here?

Airheads.

Review #2566: Airheads.

Cast: 

Brendan Fraser (Chester "Chazz Darby" Ogilvie), Steve Buscemi (Rex), Adam Sandler (Pip), Chris Farley (Officer Wilson), Michael McKean (Milo Jackson), Judd Nelson (Jimmie Wing), Ernie Hudson (Sergeant O'Malley), Amy Locane (Kayla), Michael Richards (Doug Beech), Joe Mantegna (Ian "The Shark"), Nina Siemaszko (Suzzi), Marshall Bell (Carl Mace), Reg E. Cathey (Marcus), David Arquette (Carter), Michelle Hurst (Yvonne), and Harold Ramis (Chris Moore) Directed by Michael Lehmann (#307 - Hudson Hawk, #1490 - Heathers)

Review:

"My feeling was that I had never done something like this. I was a young filmmaker. I had done a couple of independent movies that were really liked and out of the mainstream. And then I did Hudson Hawk, where definitely the sensibility was a little out of the mainstream and it didn’t play that well out of the mainstream. But I still hadn’t learned my lesson, thankfully, and I thought, I’m going to get people in this movie that you wouldn’t expect to see in a movie like this and that’s going to make it more like something I want to see."

You'll never believe this: an ensemble movie with a bit of music and plenty of attempts at comedy that didn't exactly gel with audiences. The script was done by Rich Wilkes, who had been inspired by a movie he loved with Dog Day Afternoon (1975), specifically in doing a comedic rendition that involved rock and roll. He had done music journalism and interviews prior to writing the spec script that eventually went from Island Pictures to 20th Century Fox. Apparently, Lehmann was the first choice in mind for the movie, with Airheads being his fourth movie as a director, after Heathers (1988), Meet the Applegates (1990), and Hudson Hawk (1991)*. While the studio and Lehmann traded disagreements that resulted in a PG-13 movie rather than, say, the R-rated one he hoped to do, at least the studio did not win the request before production where they wanted to have a comedian to "do a pass on the script" (according to Wilkes, Dennis Miller was that guy). As it happened, Wilkes was involved in two film productions in the year of 1994: The Stone Age, which he co-wrote with James Melkonian that was released in February, and this film, which came out in August. Released in the first week of August alongside such films as Clear and Present Danger and The Little Rascals (with The Mask being a few days beforehand), Airheads was not a financial hit, making barely a third of its reported $15 million budget. Lehmann carried along as a director, with his next movie being The Truth About Cats & Dogs (1996) and the reputation of the movie has probably increased in recent years if it inspired people to talk about it for, say, an anniversary retrospective (link here).

For whatever reason, there were actual critiques about the movie either not being an outright comedy or a "satire". Now, I'll level with you: do you really care about "satires"? Do you really care about being subtle in a comedy? Do you really care about anything other than the rockin' beat of a song? Does knowing the "scene" of music such as alternative rock truly matter? Some of those answers are "yes", some of those answers are "no", but I was fine with the overall trip as a whole (besides, it can alway be worse with insulting music, just as The Big Lebowski and that stupid Eagles joke). Sure, it works best when cribbing from The Blues Brothers (1980) rather than Dog Day Afternoon, but it is a neat little movie. It's kind of funny to look at a cast like this and say, yes, one of these folks ended up winning an Academy Award years later.  You've got a little cameo for Harold Ramis (and Lemmy, because hell yeah), Arquette mostly being in the background, three Saturday Night Live guys of the time (Sandler, McKean, and Farley*), a Mike Judge cameo (who among us?), Richards lurking around in his giant frame, but most importantly: a lovable trio of goofballs with Fraser, Buscemi, and Sandler. They have a type of charm that can only come from people wrapped in enough confidence to believe that they really could just waltz in and become rock stars because their stuff is totally the stuff "for the '90s" (not being to actually listen to their songs, for the most part, is kinda funny). They make for quite the trio together in timing, toeing the line in amusement where one likes to see where they go rather than say, laughing at their dream. Sure, I could take it or leave it with Locane* or Farley, but the supporting folks that go around the film such as McKean and his delightfully rat finky performance (less so from Nelson and his attempt to match) or Mantegna and his wannabee Howard Stern* act. I'm a sucker for the people and voices that pop in and out as a time capsule for its time (I imagine that over 30 years, Marky Mark does still suck, although the jury is probably still out on the "Rodney King" chant). For a 92-minute ride, it's a neat comfort movie for those who buy into what it is selling in goofy enthusiasm that likes its folks and likes the scene enough to make it a movie that definitely deserved better.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up: At last: Reynolds and Eastwood in City Heat.

*I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Applegates is probably the most mediocre of the first four Lehmann movies if only because it is highly unlikely that Heathers, a movie I didn't like that much, is lower than Hudson Hawk, Airheads, and also a movie about mutant shapeshifters from Brazil living in Ohio.

*Yes, Michael McKean was on Saturday Night Live as a 46-year-old. Also, that would be *future WCW Heavyweight Champion* David Arquette. Hey, I didn't really give that much of a shit about watching him in Scream, were you expecting me to actually cite that movie? By the way, if you read the retrospective link, you'll probably be shocked as I was in the following sentence: Kevin Spacey wanted to be in Airheads! Good lord, imagine that guy being in the movie, what a dodged bullet. 

*Can I state a small pet peeve? I love Ghostbusters (1984), but am I the only one who thinks Ernie Hudson doesn't get the credit he deserves for being a key part of that movie? It's a QUARTET team, not a trio. Hell, The Real Ghostbusters didn't even let him play Winston, what kind of dumbass show does that? I think at least one percent of folks forgetting about Winston in comparison to the others is at least 0.1% based in weirdo prejudice where they can't even admit to being prejudiced. 

*In 2010, Locane, who was found to be over the blood alcohol level, was involved in a car collision that resulted in the death of a woman. She served a few years for vehicular homicide and assault by auto. Incidentally, in 1984, Vince Neil was involved in a car accident that resulted in vehicular manslaughter and DUI charges when a passenger in his car died. He served only 15 days in jail and paid restitution to the victims of the crash - The moral of the story: don't drink and drive.

*Remember when Howard Stern tried to be funny and not whatever the hell he is now? Incidentally, John "Stuttering John" Melendez appears in the movie and even has a song featured. 

Killers of the Flower Moon.

Review #2142: Killers of the Flower Moon.

Cast: 

Leonardo DiCaprio (Ernest Burkhart), Robert De Niro (William King Hale), Lily Gladstone (Mollie Kyle), Jesse Plemons (Thomas Bruce White Sr), Tantoo Cardinal (Lizzie Q), John Lithgow (Prosecutor Peter Leaward), Brendan Fraser (W. S. Hamilton), Cara Jade Myers (Anna Brown), JaNae Collins (Reta), Jillian Dion (Minnie), Jason Isbell (Bill Smith), William Belleau (Henry Roan), Louis Cancelmi (Kelsie Morrison), Scott Shepherd (Byron Burkhart), Everett Waller (Paul Red Eagle), Talee Redcorn (Non-Hon-Zhin-Ga / Traditional Leader), Yancey Red Corn (Chief Bonnicastle), Tatanka Means (John Wren), Tommy Schultz (Blackie Thompson), Sturgill Simpson (Henry Grammer), and Ty Mitchell (John Ramsey) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, #1496 - Goodfellas, #1544 - The Departed, #1559 - Hugo, and #1567 - The Wolf of Wall Street)

Review: 

“As far as taking risks at this age, what else can I do? No, let’s go do something comfortable.’ Are you kidding?”

The Native American and the white man in particular, did not have the greatest of relations in the early years of the United States, particularly in the 19th century. At any rate, by the dawn of the 20th century, the Osage Nation was undergoing significant change. The Burke Act in 1906 tried to assess the competency of Native Americans (as a person), while the Oklahoma and Indian Territories merged in 1907 when they were admitted into the Union. By this time, the Osage had found oil on their land. Long story short, there were headrights assigned to the people of the tribe when it came to royalties for oil, which would change their lives in ways that could never be reversed (which is depicted in the opening of the film with a ceremony cutting right to oil). There were guardians assigned to the tribe to "manage" the rights for decades (incidentally, when the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was signed, President Calvin Coolidge was photographed with four members of the Osage). By the time legislation was done to ensure that non-Osage could not inherit the headrights, a string of murders later called "The Reign of Terror" was already in motion for people such as the Bureau of Investigation (later named the FBI) to eventually break into. The murders had a wide effect for the people that saw it and others around. Fred Grove (a part-Osage) was a child when he heard the bombing murders and became a novelist. Tragedies of the Osage Hills (1926) was a dramatization done by James Young Deer (a man with Nanticoke ancestry), although it is now lost. The FBI Story (1959) dramatized the crime investigation The movie shows a handful of the murders, but it is estimated that over 60 people may have been murder as a part of these murders, with one of the ringleaders being William King Hale. In 2017, the nonfiction novel Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI as written by David Grann, was published, and the attention was so present that Imperative Entertainment paid $5 million to the film rights the year before the film was released. The original intent for the film apparently was focusing mostly on the investigation (where DiCaprio would star as Thomas Bruce White). However, this was shifted to a focus instead onto Ernest Burkhart and his wife Mollie Kyle as Scorsese stated that since the audience knows the film is really a "who-didn't-do-it" rather than a whodunit. Osage Nation chief Geoffrey Standing Bear served as a consultant on the film; Scorsese wrote the film with Eric Roth

Leave it to me to give credit to Apple TV+ for helping to fund the film (Paramount Pictures became distributor rather than just the whole funding studio when fears arose about the budget rising to $200 million). Well, anybody that lets a film that runs for over three hours a proper release in cinemas deserves worthwhile attention, so imagine releasing one that is really good. Scorsese is one of our most enduring directors alive today when it comes to storytelling that has the scope and range to back up everything that comes and goes with this film. It is a lament for the dead that seems now more than ever important to remember when it comes to the lessons that one can find within the dangers that come in greed and power. The pace never seems to loom on one's interest because of just how much there is to show within this town in terms of hypocrisy. People are killed or set up to be killed in ways that make one recoil in the sheer audacity. There are so many actors present that pop in and out that can't even be mentioned due to space (such as Barry Corbin, playing a gloomy undertaker, or Fraser using those moments of screentime for appropriate bluster opposite Lithgow), much in the same way that one can't mention every nook and cranny when it comes to the history aspects (the book notes the rumor that William Hale was the father of the unborn child that was being carried by Anna Brown before she was murdered). This is quite a worthy trio to hold it all together when it comes to just how much greed and language can touch upon people's lives (consider that De Niro's character speaks to the Osage in their language and yet it never is translated). The dynamic of DiCaprio and Gladstone is especially important to gaze upon when it comes to viewing just what looks like deception and looks like an actual sense of love. DiCaprio sells the game well when it comes to playing the part of puppet and puppeteer that makes for such a grand act of pathetic measures of men. Admittedly, it might seem odd that Hale, a person who was in his late forties when the murders were being done, is being played by De Niro (in his late seventies), but he proves a skillful performance in conniving sociopathy, one who never looks to show any remorse for what they reap and see from their actions. Amidst all of the tragedy, the one most visible is with Gladstone because of the decay that becomes apparent the longer the proceedings go on that she handles with tenacity. That last scene with her and DiCaprio is a worthy one to close their story out with all one needs to know when it comes to truths and lies. The way that the film ends is particularly well done because it goes twofold with how the last words go with the last image of Osage celebrating their culture in a large tribal dance with just what has endured from those dark days. People live, people die, but the culture endures. As a film, it is a great tragedy that will surely prove enduring when looking upon the many worthy films that Scorsese has made as a filmmaker in over a half-century. This lesson of greedy horror in a time that does not strike as too different from now is handled with effective execution and stature that could only be viewed best with dedicated patience and curiosity through and through.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Mummy Returns.

Review #2126: The Mummy Returns.

Cast: 

Brendan Fraser (Rick O'Connell), Rachel Weisz (Evelyn O'Connell / Nefertiri), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Arnold Vosloo (Imhotep), Oded Fehr (Ardeth Bay), Patricia Velásquez (Meela Nais / Anck-su-namun), Freddie Boath (Alex O'Connell), Dwayne Johnson (Mathayus of Akkad / The Scorpion King), Alun Armstrong (Baltus Hafez), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Lock-Nah), and Shaun Parkes (Izzy Buttons) Written and Directed by Stephen Sommers (#201 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and #1748 - The Mummy [1999])

Review: 

I did enjoy the 1999 Mummy film, albeit as a neat little romp. It did not exactly improve on previous films under that same title that had been released in 1932 or 1959, but as an action/effects feature with that general dose of horror, well, it worked out well. Sommers apparently was hesitant about doing a sequel, even if it was basically inevitable with the resulting success of that first film, which he had a hand in writing. In fact, he had described the original script of said film as "a bit reckless" before eventually getting to an "okay" result. Aside from an enlarged budget (which stems from a few raises to actors), not much has changed here, since over half-a-dozen actors from the first return here to go with a script done by Sommers. The film was a general success with audiences on the level of the original. The Scorpion King (2002), a spinoff film featuring, well, Dwayne Johnson reprising his role as the character of the same name, came out the year after this film and inspired its own run of films. Sommers did exactly one further horror-ish film with Van Helsing in 2004, which went pretty much where you would expect. A third Mummy film would come in 2008 with The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, which retained Fraser and Hannah only in cast while Sommers served only as a producer.

Well, sometimes you just can't win them all. 129 minutes somehow seems pretty disposable for a film that is just a bit short in comparison to the first film when it comes to holding itself together for overall cohesion. It is a bit too familiar to go with being bereft of effective pacing. Granted, Fraser and Weisz do still have a good deal of charm together, and in general one will be just fine with watching the film when it comes to looking for just spectacle (okay, maybe some of those effects don't help). They seem to enjoy the strangeness that comes with being in a sequel with less to do in quick charm, which is more than one can say for most middling sequels. At least the kid actor that comes for the film makes for a few chuckles, but if I am drawing straws by saying this for a film released in the new millennium, what is it saying about the parts as a whole? One sees folks like Hannah seem to be having some sort of fun being around here again (relief or otherwise), but the stakes don't seem as presentable here. One senses their attention start to drift even before a dirigible makes an appearance and boy do I wish I felt some sort of presence of terror in seeing the return of said mummy from before (complete with creating big water). It trots out pygmy mummies and past lives to go with utilizing wrestler-turned-actor Johnson mostly for spectacle sequences in the start and end (one to explain just what he has to do with anything and the other for effects that look as rushed as one could expect). Even the one sequence of a character getting killed seems destined to be undone for the climax, and, well, it is funny being right for the dumbest and shallow of things. As a whole, it just isn't as freshly interesting as its predecessor, managing to be as average as one painfully can see in countless other features that is merely just okay rather than fully satisfying in fun. It is a mild disappointment that pleases a few requirements but doesn't make for a great sequel in enough categories to recommend it more than once. The fluff just isn't enough here to be as good fluff as before.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next: Re-Animator.

The Mummy (1999)

Review #1748: The Mummy.

Cast:

Brendan Fraser (Rick O'Connell), Rachel Weisz (Evelyn Carnahan), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Arnold Vosloo (Imhotep), Kevin J. O'Connor (Beni Gabor), Jonathan Hyde (Dr. Allen Chamberlain), Oded Fehr (Ardeth Bay), Erick Avari (Dr. Terence Bey), Stephen Dunham (Isaac Henderson), Corey Johnson (David Daniels), Tuc Watkins (Bernard Burns), and Omid Djalili (Warden Gad Hassan) Directed by Stephen Sommers (#201 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra)

Review: 

Yes, I know, technically this isn't an "all the way horror movie". But it is a remake of the classic 1932 film of the same name as some sort of epic romantic adventure with help by Industrial Light and Magic. If you remember, the original movie involved Boris Karloff playing the title character, one that involved a mummy (Imhotep) raised from the dead that proceeded to live among folks for a decade before wanting to bring back his long-dead princess with a person that happens to be half-Egyptian and looks like said princess. Well, aside from the Book of the Dead helping in a resurrection, the movie isn't quite a straight-laced remake. Of course, this wasn't the first time this had happened, since Hammer Film Productions had done their own version that began in 1959 (although it was based on the sequels more so than the original, and this was followed by a number of sequels). It should be noted that the film that came from Universal Studios in 1999 was a culmination of a decade of attempts from producers James Jacks and Sean Daniel to make a modern Mummy movie that went through several directors and writers in consideration that revolved from George A. Romero to Clive Barker to Joe Dante; it should be noted that until 1996, Universal was aiming for a cheaply budgeted movie, and they were really aiming for an unstoppable villain at the level of The Terminator (incidentally, the movie was made for $62 million. So yes, one is probably wondering a bit about Sommers. Born in Indiana but raised in Minnesota, he was a graduate of the USC School of Cinematic Arts before he went to direct his first film in Catch Me If You Can (1989), which attracted a little notice despite minimal release; he directed two features for Walt Disney Pictures involving literary figures (Huckleberry Finn, Jungle Book), and it was during the end of shooting Deep Rising (1998) that he found interest in the ongoing attempts to bring The Mummy onto the screen. So, yes, I suppose one can be glad that Sommers (a fan of the original film that had aimed to do a remake for years) wanted to make a fair adventure with tinges of horror, at least for a title character that goes around wanting flesh to regenerate before creating sand storms. Sommers would be credited for the screenplay while also doing work on the story with Lloyd Fonvielle and Kevin Jarre. 

So, now we have a mummy that was buried alive due to attempts with the Book of the Dead to bring back a lost love that has been watched over from the bodyguards of the pharaoh and its descendants for 3,000 years while a lost city holding wealth and the tomb is waiting to be found. Look, it all depends on how much one buys into its attempts at sweeping adventure that doesn't take itself too seriously while having a few CGI effects here and there. Honestly, I'm fine with it, albeit in the mindset that it is basically comfort food; it may be fluff, but it is decent fluff, one that has interest in making charm count more so than sitting back and looking at effects sequences for two hours. It may not be great scary fun, but being alright fun that is aware of its surroundings is decent enough for most folks, a blockbuster in the era that fits it, and at least one can recognize some fair effects and some ideas of spooky scenery; the scarabs are pretty chilling, and the title creature in its growing form is pretty creepy. Technically speaking, it compares favorably to the original 1932 film, and it likely stands up fair for the era it was made for; while I undoubtedly have more curiosity over the film that could have been with a different director, being a loose effective remake of the original 1932 film is still an effective film in the long run (two sequels would follow in 2001 and 2008 before Universal did a "reboot" in 2017). Of course, the highlight among the cast is Fraser. He manages to roll along with the quick pace and wavering attempts at humor with just enough timing and stature to make things count, playing with the material with a casual appreciative nature. Weisz fares fine, straddling the line in curiosity that at least has more to do than her counterpart in the original feature (which, incidentally, means Weisz and Fraser have a bit of chemistry together). Hannah (first known for his work in Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) among television work) fits exactly to what is needed in mild comic relief without dragging the film down (or being easy bait in line for being taken down), while O'Connor does okay in sniveling middleman material. Vosloo is curious as the adversary, one that has to try and seem interesting in creeping terror despite being surrounded by a bunch of makeup that doesn't give him that much to really do. Part of me wishes this would have done more when it comes to actual horror, because the potential is there is you think about it. As a whole, it manages to push most of the right buttons in doing stirring entertainment in the guise of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), but then again most blockbusters probably honed a trick or two from that film, so being a step or two below something like that isn't a bad thing. It is a romp, and a romp is fine if one is in the mood for it. I wavered between just how "good" it was, but I guess calling it a good kind of average film (in either genre) is appropriate. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Final Destination (2000).

Movie Night: Blast from the Past.

Review #445: Blast from the Past.

Cast
Brendan Fraser (Adam Webber), Alicia Silverstone (Eve Vrustikoff), Christopher Walken (Calvin Webber), Sissy Spacek (Helen Webber), Dave Foley (Troy), Joey Slotnick (Melker), Dale Raoul (Mom), Rex Linn (Dave), Cynthia Mace (Betty), and Harry S. Murphy (Bob) Directed by Hugh Wilson.

Review
You know, there are some films that aren't really good on attaining its purpose, but still have a cute charm, a sweet, but not too sweet feel, basically a guilty pleasure. The premise of this film is a bit inventive (Though what kind of person makes a shelter that you can't even get out for 35 years?), and while it may not live up fully to its potential, I suppose it could've done worse. Brendan Fraser is not too terrible in the main role, awkward, but not too bad. Alicia Silverstone (Who I last saw in Batman & Robin, which automatically means she went a step up from that film) is somewhat better, though to be fair Christopher Walken in some ways steals the show, maybe it's his charisma, or that duck joke, I don't know. The film has a few laughs, and it sometimes tries to be ambitious, and while it starts out slow, it does at least finish well, and it's not too bad, a bit average. Is it awkward? Sometimes. Is it okay? Sure. But is it forgettable? Not all the time. Countdown to 450 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Bedazzled (2000)

Review #138: Bedazzled.

Cast
Brendan Fraser (Elliot Richards / Jefe / "Mary" / Abraham Lincoln), Elizabeth Hurley (The Devil), Frances O'Connor (Alison Gardner / Nicole Delarusso), Orlando Jones (Daniel / Dan / Danny / Esteban / Beach Jock / Lamar Garrett / Dr. Ngegitigegitibaba), Paul Adelstein (Bob / Roberto / Beach Jock / Bob Bob), Toby Huss (Jerry / Alejandro / Beach Jock / Jerry Turner / Lance), Miriam Shor (Carol / Penthouse Hostess), Gabriel Casseus (Elliot's Cellmate), and Brian Doyle-Murray (Priest) Directed by Harold Ramis.

Review
I think this is the first time I've reviewed a remake of a film directly after I just reviewed the original film. Anyway, they both share the same title, but are they the same in quality? In a word, no. This film's flaw is that it relies on its jokes often and feels smug with them, like it automatically thinks it is funny. With the original, it made you think (A rarity in comedies) This doesn't. It tries to be good, but it just doesn't work. The acting's fine, but if I had to choose who's better with acting, the original wins. Cook is the better Devil because he's just so dang fun as the Devil while doing all these things. Hurley while being fun and evil as well just doesn't feel the same. Fraser is decent, doing what he does. Overall, this is a film that doesn't really feel like a remake. It just feels typical all in all.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Looney Tunes: Back in Action.

Review #007: Looney Tunes: Back in Action.

Cast
Brendan Fraser (D.J. Drake), Jenna Elfman (Kate Houghton), Steve Martin (Mr. Chairman), Joe Alaskey (Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Sylvester, Beaky Buzzard, Mama Bear), Jeff Bennett (Foghorn Leghorn, Yosemite Sam, Nasty Canasta), Heather Locklear (Dusty Tails), Joan Cusack (Mother), Timothy Dalton (Damian Drake), Bob Bergen (Porky Pig), June Foray (Granny), Brendan Fraser (Tasmanian Devil), Eric Goldberg (Marvin the Martian, Michigan J. Frog, Speedy Gonzales, Tweety), Bruce Lanoil (Pepé Le Pew), and Billy West (Elmer Fudd, Peter Lorre) Directed by Joe Dante.

Review
This is the first film covered of the 2000s, a decade that has just passed us by recently. The film is a wacky, but fine comedy with animation and live action mixed in very well. The cartoon characters are voiced well, with decent acting from Fraser and crazier acting by Martin. It's a zany, but cool film worth all the comedy, action, drama, spyness, and more all into a 90 minute film that entertains even if it may have been overshadowed by Elf, Matrix Revolutions, and *sighs* Cat in the Hat (#210). I'd say it's an underrated gem, but you'll have to check it out to see for yourself. For me, it's successful.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.